Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
face the uncertainty that many will face with regard to their taxes. there is no reason that middle income families should go into this holiday season without knowing whether their taxes will go up next year. last year, democrats and republicans work together to cut nearly $1 trillion of spending. now we need to continue that bi- partisan work to cut more spending, and to if congress fails to reach an agreement under the budget control act of 2011, 1.2 trillion dollars in automatic spending cuts will take lace between 2013 and 2021. republicans and democrats agree that indiscriminate across-the- board cuts is not the right and to do at this time in our nation's history. if we trigger the automatic spending cuts and tax increases , grossed a mustard product will fall by half a percentage point -- gross margin bottom will fall by half a percentage point. we will reverse the hard-fought gains over the past few years. we cannot afford to go backwards. instead we need a balanced and bipartisan approach. one that balances the short and long-term needs, distinguishes between foreign invest
that taxes and middle-class americans that violates the fundamental preliminary that the president has -- in order to preserve low tax rates for wealthy americans, to ask the middle class to pay the price is not going to happen. it's not just the policy. >> only taxes on those families making $250,000. >> every proposal that has been seen and analyzed imagine you can achieve the necessary amount of revenue by closing deductions or closing loopholes, does that in one of two ways. one, raising taxes on the middle class by eliminating very family-friendly deductions like the mortgage deduction, health care deduction and others or by taking draconian action on the charitable deductions and others that aren't good policy or aren't realistic. it would be hard to explain, i don't think members would want to explain to nonprofit hospitals, major charities, universities and others that all that -- all those contributions that they received in the past will not be forth coming because of an action of congress, i don't think that is realistic. >> one last question, if the amount of revenue were t
, reagan did hold up his end of the deal and went along to support the tax increases. however, it -- on their side of the equation and did not implement the spending cuts, and so, this also happens again under the elder george bush's presidency, so i have very little confidence in democratic leadership's willingness to stand by a pledge to cut any spending at all. host: thanks to all the calls this morning. the house of representatives is about to come into session. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 4, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable gregg harper to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority a
, since the invention of the income tax. there has always been a deduction for interest that you paid. the government didn't think it could distinguish between mortgage interest and other kinds of interest. less interest is deductible now. some of the things are left over from the early days of the tax code. there is no magic about allowing people to deduct mortgage interest and not the interest they pay on their credit cards. some of these things are hard to explain. host: does it incentivize home buying? guest: it does provide some if incentive for buying a home and is a large tax break and gives them an enormous benefits. it mostly provides an incentive for buying a bigger house. it seems to incentivize mcmansions. there is a fair question of whether that is something we should be spending that much money on. host: let's go to ohio, robert is a democrat. caller: yes, my question is this. a question/comment. i have seen all these outbreaks been giving out. supposedly they were created for an incentive for them to hire more people. they were given as four years and years. a majority
end up in situations where they can't cover their insurance and their taxes and too often we lead to a situation where they have more leverage, more debt, than their home is worth by the time they're ready to sell that home. >> so you're saying because of that change, that's what resulted in the huge $2.9 billion. >> that is for many of these -- for most of the new loans that we're making, they're at this full draw and they -- the actuary predicts they're going to be enormous losses on those going forward because of this full draw feature. >> ok. and also, the last time you testified before the committee, we discussed the national mortgage settlement. can you talk briefly about the m.m.i. fund, how it's benefited from the settlement? >> in the most direct way it's benefited by well over $1 billion that came directly to the fund from that settlement. or that series of settlements. also important, though, is we put in place not just for fmplet h.a. loans but for -- f.h.a. loans but for every kind of loan that were serviced by the banks that were part of it, new standards for how the
, and new tax revenues. there was a three page letter signed by speaker boehner, majority leader eric cantor, and other senior republicans including representative paul ryan. and this mornings "washington journal," we heard about tax reductions and credits that would go away if the fiscal cliff passes in january. >> board or series looking into the so-called fiscal cliff, we turn our attention to deductions and tax loopholes. some of them are potentially on the chopping block. joining us from the wall street journal is don mckinnon. thanks so much for joining us today. what are the loopholes and deductions? we hear those words a lot, but what are they? guest: loopholes or tax breaks of all different sorts, and whether you like a particular loophole or not depends on where you sit, i guess. there are lots of loopholes that are deductions. deductions are those that most people are familiar with. the big, itemized deductions are things like the home mortgage interest deduction. there is a deduction for state and local taxes that is very important, the deduction for charitable contributions is r
dollar deficits throughout that time. tax policy hasn't changed during that time. tax policy is exactly the same. you hear in the newspaper all the time, mr. speaker, the bush tax cuts. i don't know that that has meaning anymore. in 2001 and 2003 we did do some dramatic changes to tax policy. president obama extended all of those changes in 2010. that's the law of the land still today. tax policy has been exactly the same over this continuum. what has changed, mr. speaker, what has changed is the spending. the reason deficits have grown not one, not two, not three but almost four times larger than the previous record deficit in american history is not because tax policy has changed, it hasn't. it's because federal spending policy has changed. and that's what we have to get our arms around here in this body. what i show going forward, mr. speaker, put a little square around the annual budget deficits that have been run during the first four years of the obama administration, but i also project what the congressional budget office believes, that's a nonpartisan budget planning group we ha
. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it relates to bending the cost curve on health care and focusing on the vast inefficiencies, the fraud, the abuse and the waste that totals more than $750 billion annually? as for the chairman from my district said, list, it would be a way for us to bring down the deficit but also make health care affordable, accessible and functional for the american people. something i believe we must do. with that let me introduce the chair in waiting, javier becerra. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. it's been a pleasure serving with you as our chairman of the caucus. december, how many families do you know that are sitting down right now trying to do some quick math on their finances and figure out how they can stay on their budget and have a little left over to buy gifts for the kids and for the loved ones so it will be a merry christmas, great holiday for all of america's families? they don't have any choice but to fig
. tanner? guest: the unemployment tax is generally under 1% even when you include the match that goes into the extended benefits. we're already running in federal debt more than 100% of gdp. once you get over 60% to 70% of gdp, that begins to slow economic growth. we are costing jobs. that is because that money is -- players are looking down the road and saying they're going to have to pay more in the future. we simply cannot afford to spend money, especially we do not have, and still expect to grow fast enough to create the jobs we need to get these folks off of unemployment. host: dotmr. bivens -- mr. bivens? guest: the employer taxes that kicked in are more modest than the previous caller said. i think she had a 15% number. it is an average of $40 a worker. a lot of the states have had to repay. where we disagree is what is holding back the economy. most of the deficit we have today is a symptom of how the economy is and is providing a useful product by injecting demand into the economy, and that is why we are still constrained. host: joseph and is on the democratic line. caller: w
the right solution for solving our issues of middlele class tax cuts and the fiscal deadline and make sure we move in a very positive direction. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers. i am prepared to return the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. mr. smith: we have no further speakers on this side. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass bill h.r. 6620. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, morph that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6602, to make revisions in title 36, uni
with the following belief. the only way to get it in order is through rapid economic growth. no taxes you can raise to bring the debt down. what the president is offering is not enough but will make a dent on job creation, particularly middle-class job creation. i oppose his plan. we should do real tax reform. if there are loopholes, there is a loophole for being able to write off your yacht as a second home. let's go after that. we need more revenue and the way you do that is through rapid economic growth. it's the only way to generate the kind of revenue you need and hold it. >> what's the only way you would raise tax rates on the top 2%? >> the number one issue is to grow the economy and creating jobs. i believe that proposal will hurt job creation. the tru millionaires, they have the best accountants and lawyers in america. do whatever you want, they are go to go maximize it. the people who get crushed, the small s corporation who can't afford to do this in the tax code and ends up getting creamed. they have to get the money from somewhere. though can lay off workers, and none of those things a
growing agitation and a willingness to see tax by the united states among members of all political persuasions here in the senate. you have four members of the senate here representing the widest range of political parties saying with one voice, america has to lead. america has to lead an international coalition that will make very clear to us to assad, which if he crosses what secretary clinton called the red line and uses these weapons, chemical and biological, there will be grave consequences. essentially the end of his regime. i hope through the deterrence we can stop him from doing so, but i also believe that we as leaders of the world, the united states, has to begin to assemble an international coalition to prevent assad from using the chemical and biological agents against his own people. we have sat too long on the sidelines we are now getting engaged the need for engagement and more than that urgent action is clear and now. and i think we are all saying to president obama who has now stated very clearly there will be drastic consequences for assad and his government if th
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12